Villa (Leslie) v. State
67568
| Nev. | Jul 28, 2016Background
- Appellant Leslie Villa was convicted by a jury of first-degree kidnapping, domestic battery (strangulation), and battery causing substantial bodily harm after an incident in which he moved the victim to his car, strangled and punched her, and caused protracted impairment to her right eye.
- Villa challenged multiple aspects of the prosecution and conviction on appeal, including verdict inconsistency, multiplicity and double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, failure to preserve blood evidence, voluntariness of a Mirandized statement, sufficiency of evidence for substantial bodily harm, amendment of the information by affidavit, and whether the kidnapping movement was incidental to the batteries.
- The district court permitted the State to amend the information by affidavit after a magistrate had struck a count the magistrate had earlier found probable cause to support.
- The prosecutor made improper remarks in closing (personal opinion and urging disregard of instructions), but the court found no prejudice given overwhelming evidence and the jury’s acquittal on attempted murder.
- Villa’s Miranda waiver was found implicit and voluntary after he received warnings, acknowledged understanding, and spoke without coercion; he later stated he wanted to ‘‘get it over with.’”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verdict inconsistency | Villa: verdicts inconsistent and should be rejected | State: substantial evidence supports each conviction | Court: No inconsistency; substantial evidence supports convictions (affirmed) |
| Multiplicity of charges | Villa: State filed multiplicitous charges | State: each offense requires different elements | Court: Offenses are separate under elements test; multiplicity claim fails |
| Double jeopardy (two battery convictions) | Villa: two battery convictions violate double jeopardy | State: each battery offense has distinct elements (strangulation vs. substantial bodily harm) | Court: No double jeopardy violation; convictions permissible |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Villa: prosecutor injected personal opinion and urged disregard of instructions | State: errors were harmless given evidence and jury’s proper verdict form | Court: Misconduct occurred but did not affect substantial rights; no relief |
| Failure to preserve blood evidence | Villa: blood draw would show phentermine intoxication and be material | State: Villa appeared cogent; delay undermines materiality; expert saw no phentermine psychosis reports; overwhelming evidence | Court: No gross negligence prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Miranda waiver / suppression of statement | Villa: did not expressly waive Miranda; statement involuntary | State: Villa was warned, acknowledged understanding, and spoke voluntarily | Court: Waiver implicit and voluntary; suppression denied |
| Sufficiency for substantial bodily harm element | Villa: evidence insufficient to show protracted impairment of eye | State: medical testimony and injuries show protracted impairment | Court: Evidence sufficient for rational trier of fact; conviction stands |
| Kidnapping incidental to battery | Villa: movement was incidental to batteries and cannot sustain kidnapping | State: movement (transport to desert) had independent significance and greater risk | Court: Movement not merely incidental; kidnapping conviction upheld |
| Amendment of information by affidavit | Villa: district court erred allowing amendment after magistrate action | State: magistrate egregiously erred by striking a count it found probable cause for | Court: Amendment by affidavit permitted; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bollinger v. State, 901 P.2d 671 (Nev. 1995) (inconsistent verdicts not overturned where substantial evidence supports convictions)
- Bedard v. State, 48 P.3d 46 (Nev. 2002) (elements test for multiplicity)
- Jackson v. State, 291 P.3d 1274 (Nev. 2012) (double jeopardy analysis requires distinct elements)
- Valdez v. State, 196 P.3d 465 (Nev. 2008) (two-step test for prosecutorial misconduct; plain-error review)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (Miranda waiver may be implicit where suspect understands and speaks)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Mendoza v. State, 130 P.3d 176 (Nev. 2006) (kidnapping movement must have independent significance or substantially greater risk)
- State v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (Warren), 964 P.2d 48 (Nev. 1998) (amendment of information by affidavit where magistrate egregious error)